U.S. House Democrat predicts request for Trump tax returns in two weeks

[mtls2005]

16 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

I do not care 1 iota what's in Trumps tax return or what boundaries a billionaire's accountants pushed in preparing them. Not one bit.

 

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, as are the majority of Americans who see no reason for trump tp not to release his returns.

 

Pushing boundaries? Sure, fine. Greatly exceeding them to the point of breaking the law? Maybe not so good a look in a president?

 

Multiple bankruptcies probably allows one to "push the envelope" re: tax filing?

 

18 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

He got voted in - get over it.

 

Sage advice, not followed by Republicans circa 2008-2016, strangely enough. Maybe next time?

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, as are the majority of Americans who see no reason for trump tp not to release his returns.

 

Pushing boundaries? Sure, fine. Greatly exceeding them to the point of breaking the law? Maybe not so good a look in a president?

 

Multiple bankruptcies probably allows one to "push the envelope" re: tax filing?

 

 

Sage advice, not followed by Republicans circa 2008-2016, strangely enough. Maybe next time?

 

It will be interesting to see how they get the returns, if they get the returns. As I posted in the TBOR, the right to confidentiality and finality are protected unless evidence of fraud.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/18may/18may-pbm-roberson-the-taxpayer-bill-of-rights/

[direction BANGKOK]

First president to not release them, and the given reason for not releasing them it sounds like is a lie. I do not think it is going too far to say only a full blown sociopath could do that. Not realeasing them I can understand, and the voters could take note... but lying about it to millions of people! You have to be a sociopath to sit there and do that with a straight face. And that is just one little thing he has going on over the course of these two years among thousands. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by direction BANGKOK

[quandow]

On 3/5/2019 at 5:52 PM, pedro01 said:

My understanding is he's not obliged to give it, right?

 

So an exercise in futility?

Unless it's an investigation into criminal activity. Which it now is.

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Absolutely 100% Correct.

 

I do not care 1 iota what's in Trumps tax return or what boundaries a billionaire's accountants pushed in preparing them. Not one bit.

 

He got voted in - get over it.

 

So, the president's credibility, honesty or obeying the law do not figure. The only thing that matters is winning one over the other side. This would hardly be commendable position even if it was limited to a single issue, let alone being exhibited on pretty much all topics concerning Trump.

 

But do go on projecting about the "dems" being just about this or that.

[Basil B]

23 hours ago, Morch said:

 

A "convicted liar" which did his lying in the service of President Trump. And bringing up lying....Didn't know you cared, what with the full-on support Trump thing.

Ones a convicted liar, the other has been proven to be liar on many occasions.

 

As for his Tax Returns being properly audited I assume that just a formality like his annual medical. 

[mikebike]

On 3/6/2019 at 10:23 AM, SpokaneAl said:

 

Isn’t that the job of the IRS to review tax returns? I see no reason why anyone should be required to release their personal tax returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Do you believe the the IRS exists in a vacuum? Without congressional oversight? Do you understand the laws of the land in the least?

[pedro01]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So, the president's credibility, honesty or obeying the law do not figure. The only thing that matters is winning one over the other side. This would hardly be commendable position even if it was limited to a single issue, let alone being exhibited on pretty much all topics concerning Trump.

 

But do go on projecting about the "dems" being just about this or that.

I must have missed the part where a crime had been committed & the authorities were now looking for a perp.

 

Nope - they have the perp - this tax return thing is one of a long list of attempts to now pin a crime to him.

 

Something the dems will carry on till 2024 and will guarantee the next 13 years or Republican leadership.

[mikebike]

19 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

I must have missed the part where a crime had been committed & the authorities were now looking for a perp.

No, you missed the part about INVESTIGATING if a crime was committed... you do understand that the authorities are obligated to do that, right?

[SpokaneAl]

No, you missed the part about INVESTIGATING if a crime was committed... you do understand that the authorities are obligated to do that, right?

I seem to recall an issue concerning probable cause before they can demand my tax records etc. and I have yet to see any probable cause here. It seems to be a case of disliking and disagreeing with the current president and opposition party so they will demand and dig in the hopes of finding something they can use.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, SpokaneAl said:

 

I seem to recall an issue concerning probable cause before they can demand my tax records etc. and I have yet to see any probable cause here. It seems to be a case of disliking and disagreeing with the current president and opposition party so they will demand and dig in the hopes of finding something they can use.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

YOU have yet to see probable cause... like reading media puts you in the same space as profession investigators. I just watched a show where peeps interviewed RECENTLY thought there was no probable cause in the Charley Manson case...

[Morch]

6 hours ago, pedro01 said:

I must have missed the part where a crime had been committed & the authorities were now looking for a perp.

 

Nope - they have the perp - this tax return thing is one of a long list of attempts to now pin a crime to him.

 

Something the dems will carry on till 2024 and will guarantee the next 13 years or Republican leadership.

 

No, you haven't. There were crimes committed by Trump's closest advisors and appointed officials. Whether or not Trump was directly or indirectly involved is under ongoing investigations. All your deflections amount to the same thing - your reject said investigations and possible implications due to partisanship, nothing more.

 

As for Republican "leadership" - that's in short supply these days. Mind, it's not that I see the other side as much better, just not as bad.

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It will be interesting to see how they get the returns, if they get the returns. As I posted in the TBOR, the right to confidentiality and finality are protected unless evidence of fraud.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/18may/18may-pbm-roberson-the-taxpayer-bill-of-rights/

Is Fraud Part of the Trump Organization’s Business Model?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/is-fraud-part-of-the-trump-organizations-business-model

[lannarebirth]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Is Fraud Part of the Trump Organization’s Business Model?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/is-fraud-part-of-the-trump-organizations-business-model

I wouldn't be surprised if fraud were a part of the TO's business model, but we're talking about the returns here. Returns that get reviewed every year. Returns where you can't submit next years returns till the IRS gives a positive judgement on your prior years returns. Returns that you can't get unless evidence of fraud surfaces thereby giving the probable cause justification for aquiring them. It doesn't work the other way around where you arbitrarily ask for the returns and then go fishing for the fraud.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

I wouldn't be surprised if fraud were a part of the TO's business model, but we're talking about the returns here. Returns that get reviewed every year. Returns where you can't submit next years returns till the IRS gives a positive judgement on your prior years returns. Returns that you can't get unless evidence of fraud surfaces thereby giving the probable cause justification for aquiring them. It doesn't work the other way around where you arbitrarily ask for the returns and then go fishing for the fraud.

I think that article already gave very clear examples of fraud. 

And, as I understand it, Trump's old tax returns from years past are still under review. Are you claiming that he hasn't submitted any since?

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

I think that article already gave very clear examples of fraud. 

And, as I understand it, Trump's old tax returns from years past are still under review. Are you claiming that he hasn't submitted any since?

Old returns would only be under review if fraud were suspected at a later time or if a current losses stem from years past. No, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that if the IRS had a problem, at the time, with prior years returns, that problem would have been rectufied by now.  That doesn't mean new problems can't arise based on more current returns that call into question prior years' financials.

[MONIKATSI]

On 3/6/2019 at 2:56 AM, Berkshire said:

I would think even Trump supporters would have no problem with Trump releasing his tax returns.  Why would you not want to see Trump's returns? 

"My prediction would be the next couple of weeks," said Representative Bill Pascrell, who has led efforts on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee to seek Trump's returns over the past two years.

[MONIKATSI]

41 minutes ago, MONIKATSI said:

"My prediction would be the next couple of weeks," said Representative Bill Pascrell, who has led efforts on the tax-writing House Ways and Means  Vidmate iTunes Notepad++ Committee to seek Trump's returns over the past two years.

I would think even Trump supporters would have no problem with Trump releasing his tax returns.  Why would you not want to see Trump's returns? 

[Prissana Pescud]

He is not obliged to release his tax forms.

But lets be honest, a person such as I can release my tax forms to all the world.  And those forms would show I paid my tax, I have complied with the law and I have nothing to hide.

All potential presidents should do the same. Only people with little moral rectitude would deny this. I had to couch my terminology, the truth is a lot harsher.

[Scott]

Some off-topic, bickering posts and replies removed.  

[Thainesss]

On 3/6/2019 at 4:36 AM, webfact said:

Republicans oppose the effort, saying such a move would set a dangerous precedent by turning the confidential tax documents of a U.S. citizen into a political weapon.

Which is pretty much exactly what the Democrats are doing. 

Shifting away from the 2 years worth of absolute Russia Armageddon to taxes, to his kids, to his personal life. Nothing is off limits to the left. 

 

I just hope they are prepared for when the shoe is on the other foot. 

[Thainesss]

1 hour ago, Prissana Pescud said:

But lets be honest, a person such as I can release my tax forms to all the world.  And those forms would show I paid my tax, I have complied with the law and I have nothing to hide.

 

Thats not how the justice system is supposed to work though. Youve got some of the most powerful, well funded and slimey politicians in the United States actively and openly trying to take out a sitting president for political gain. No sane person would ever give up any personal information to such a mob. You, me, the president. Doesnt matter. And any lawyer would advise the same. Its not about having "nothing to hide". 

 

Would you mind if I went through your home and personal life, financials, your kids lives, your wife's life? No? Why not? You dont have anything to hide do you? 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Thats not how the justice system is supposed to work though. Youve got some of the most powerful, well funded and slimey politicians in the United States actively and openly trying to take out a sitting president for political gain. No sane person would ever give up any personal information to such a mob. You, me, the president. Doesnt matter. And any lawyer would advise the same. Its not about having "nothing to hide". 

 

Would you mind if I went through your home and personal life, financials, your kids lives, your wife's life? No? Why not? You dont have anything to hide do you? 

But the justice system is supposed to do investigations when there is evidence of criminality. And there's plenty of that. One small thing, Trump pleading no contest to a civil fraud lawsuit. Plenty of evidence there to bring state charges.

What about using charitable funds to benefit himself?

And the repeated lies he and Ivanka told buyers of condominium projects with the Trump name attached? That's criminal fraud.

And that's just for starters.

[Thainesss]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But the justice system is supposed to do investigations when there is evidence of criminality.

 

No, they are supposed to do investigations (real ones, not a rando democrat "request") when there is evidence of a crime. 

 

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

One small thing, Trump pleading no contest to a civil fraud lawsuit. Plenty of evidence there to bring state charges.

 

So your argument here is that because something may or may not have happened in the past, you are no longer entitled to due process? 

 

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What about using charitable funds to benefit himself?

 

Oh well in that case, lets just put a persons entire life and family tree under a televised microscope with the obvious intent to selectively weaponize the result. 

 

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That's criminal fraud.

 

Nah, thats you making up a crime. 

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

No, they are supposed to do investigations (real ones, not a rando democrat "request") when there is evidence of a crime. 

 

 

So your argument here is that because something may or may not have happened in the past, you are no longer entitled to due process? 

 

 

Oh well in that case, lets just put a persons entire life and family tree under a televised microscope with the obvious intent to selectively weaponize the result. 

 

 

Nah, thats you making up a crime. 

As I've pointed out, there is plenty of evidence of criminality. And on, I'm not making up a crime. Donald and Ivanka would repeatedly tell buyers of condo units that they invested a much larger share in a condo development than they had, in fact, had done. They also repeatedly lied about the percentage of units that were sold. That would be criminal fraud.

And I have no idea what you mean by due process in this case. These are congressional investigations. Investigatory only. How exactly are they violating due process?

And I have no idea what you mean by "selectively weaponize the result." Trump used charitable funds to benefit himself. Not only is that morally repugnant, although you may not think so, but it can also be criminal.

[Prissana Pescud]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Thats not how the justice system is supposed to work though. Youve got some of the most powerful, well funded and slimey politicians in the United States actively and openly trying to take out a sitting president for political gain. No sane person would ever give up any personal information to such a mob. You, me, the president. Doesnt matter. And any lawyer would advise the same. Its not about having "nothing to hide". 

 

Would you mind if I went through your home and personal life, financials, your kids lives, your wife's life? No? Why not? You dont have anything to hide do you? 

I have nothing to hide

[pedro01]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As I've pointed out, there is plenty of evidence of criminality. And on, I'm not making up a crime. Donald and Ivanka would repeatedly tell buyers of condo units that they invested a much larger share in a condo development than they had, in fact, had done. They also repeatedly lied about the percentage of units that were sold. That would be criminal fraud.

And I have no idea what you mean by due process in this case. These are congressional investigations. Investigatory only. How exactly are they violating due process?

And I have no idea what you mean by "selectively weaponize the result." Trump used charitable funds to benefit himself. Not only is that morally repugnant, although you may not think so, but it can also be criminal.

So Donald Trump & Ivanka were sitting in a sales office, selling condos to Joe public?

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

So Donald Trump & Ivanka were sitting in a sales office, selling condos to Joe public?

I don't know where they were or where they were sitting but yes, they were selling condos to Joe public. Ivanka dealt directly with Joe Public.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html

And here's something else:

"Even after taking office, President Donald Trump has sold more than $35 million worth of real estate last year to secretive buyers.

Trump sold 41 luxury condo units in Las Vegas last year to people who used limited liability companies (LLCs), which allow them to hide their identities, a USA Today report found...

Before Trump signed the GOP tax bill into law in December 2017, a last-minute tax break was added for real estate investors who use LLCs, partnerships and S corporations to make deals."

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-real-estate-secret-buyers-777276

 

Here's another one:

Pump and Trump

Donald Trump claims he only licensed his name for real estate projects developed by others. But an investigation of a dozen Trump deals shows deep family involvement in projects that often involved deceptive practices.

https://features.propublica.org/trump-inc-podcast/trump-family-business-panama-city-khafif/

 

Maybe Trump should license his name to an ongoing project. It would be called The Trump Swamp.

 

[lannarebirth]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't know where they were or where they were sitting but yes, they were selling condos to Joe public. Ivanka dealt directly with Joe Public.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html

And here's something else:

"Even after taking office, President Donald Trump has sold more than $35 million worth of real estate last year to secretive buyers.

Trump sold 41 luxury condo units in Las Vegas last year to people who used limited liability companies (LLCs), which allow them to hide their identities, a USA Today report found...

Before Trump signed the GOP tax bill into law in December 2017, a last-minute tax break was added for real estate investors who use LLCs, partnerships and S corporations to make deals."

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-real-estate-secret-buyers-777276

 

Here's another one:

Pump and Trump

Donald Trump claims he only licensed his name for real estate projects developed by others. But an investigation of a dozen Trump deals shows deep family involvement in projects that often involved deceptive practices.

https://features.propublica.org/trump-inc-podcast/trump-family-business-panama-city-khafif/

 

Maybe Trump should license his name to an ongoing project. It would be called The Trump Swamp.

 

 

I have a LLC. It in no way shields my identity. Officers of the LLC are filed with the Secretary of State's office in my state and they will gladly dispense that information to anyone for a small processing fee.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I have a LLC. It in no way shields my identity. Officers of the LLC are filed with the Secretary of State's office in my state and they will gladly dispense that information to anyone for a small processing fee.

Do you use secretive shell companies, too?

"President Trump’s companies sold more than $35 million in real estate in 2017, mostly to secretive shell companies that obscure buyers’ identities, continuing a dramatic shift in his customers' behavior that began during the election, a USA TODAY review found.

In Las Vegas alone, Trump sold 41 luxury condo units in 2017, a majority of which used limited liability companies – corporate entities that allow people to purchase property without revealing all of the owners’ names...

In the two years before the nomination, 4% of Trump buyers utilized the tactic. In the year after, the rate skyrocketed to about 70%. USA TODAY's tracking of sales shows the trend held firm through Trump's first year in office. "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/01/10/trumps-secretive-real-estate-sales-continue-unabated/1018530001/